Sociology vs Philosophy: A look at the rise of sociology of science

In the 1970's a new approach to the sociology of science, called the strong program began emerge. This new approach deviated from the older approach to the sociology of science which sought to explain the place of science as a whole in society, by instead trying to explain the individual beliefs and behaviors of scientists over time. The strong program's central motivation for the critique of science is derived by what sociologists of science, Barry Barnes and David Bloor, describe as the symmetry principle. This principle, which sought out to explain the beliefs of scientists, can have some striking consequences on the role of science in society.

The symmetry principle states that all beliefs and behaviors are to be approached using the same form of explanation. In a scientific setting this would mean that all scientific beliefs are the products of the same kinds of forces. The strong program sociologists do not consider scientists to be disinterested individuals that exist in an isolated community outside of society, but rather they exist in a community that has established norms that regulate belief. These norms are an example of the common forces that produce scientific belief. The belief of blood circulating through the veins, and the belief that a fire god makes a volcano erupt, are explained by the same factor. In both examples, norms, such as the norm to justify phenomenon, establish and maintain the belief in the community. Henceforth, both examples are approached using the same kind of explanation.

It is apparent from the strong program approach that science is heavily tied with the norms within the scientific community as well as that of the whole society. Another aspect that can provide explanation for beliefs are political factors. Consider the development of modern statistics and evolutionary thinking of the nineteenth century. The development of statistics encouraged the study of eugenics, which encouraged some people to continue to breed and discouraged others to do so. This practice gave middle class white Englishmen an incentive to declare there superiority over other races, and therefore it can be said that the development of the scientific belief of eugenics was beneficial for the middle class Englishmen. An explanation for the development of eugenics can therefore be attributed to the political norms that were shared by the white English scientists. Henceforth, there continues to persist a common form of explanation for scientific beliefs.

This sort of conclusion leads to apparent striking consequences. Eugenics exists in the explanation given above, insofar as it is agreed upon and is accepted by the norms of the community. Its application and practice apparently seem to be dependent on the benefit that it provides for the practitioners. Though the kinds of explanation that are produced under the symmetry principle have a common form, it appears, that these kinds of explanations result in a form of relativism, as there is no one single set standard that determines the justification of beliefs. Instead there exists different groups of people who have different norms. The different norms the different groups have ultimately mean that there are different explanations for a same subject. For example, the rising of the sun over the Earth's horizon can be explained in terms of the movement of the Earth as well as in terms of a fire god who is reborn each morning depending on the norms of the community. These two explanations, in this case, are both valid under the symmetry principle. The problem is, how does one determine which theory is more truthful? Surely one cannot conclude that if one visits one group the rising of the sun is attributed to the movement of the Earth, and if one visits the second group the rising of the sun is then attributed to the rebirth of a fire god. Both explanations hold two distinct and incompatible accounts of the world. The only seemingly plausible solution that one could give is to state that one of the groups does not exist. This would be intuitively and empirically absurd.

The relativism that is associated with the strong program also posses a problem about the role of science in society. Scientists have traditionally argued that science has a special role in society as it provides objective knowledge about the nature of the world. This knowledge they have argued has many useful applications in society (such as creating sturdier bridges) using scientific theories. The strong program sociologists argue that scientific belief is no better than any other theory as it is a product of social and political norms just as other beliefs. Therefore, according to this symmetry principle, anyway of understanding the world is a good one. But, if scientific beliefs are relative to local norms then the role of science is undermined as it does not really play the role of truth seeker, but is rather just another belief and equally important as any other projected from society.

I argue that that symmetry principle is not a convincing and appropriate principle to explain scientific belief. If we consider another example we will see explicitly how a relativist view could not work. In spirit of the symmetry principle, historian of science Paul Foreman postulated an explanation for the development of Quantum Physics in connection to political factors. Foreman noted that after the Second World War, there was a great deal of resentment in German citizens because they lost the war. This resentment caused a decreased support towards the study of Classical Physics which was fundamentally deterministic, because the Germans believed they should have won the war due to their superior strength. Classical Physics implied that Germany lost because they weren't superior to their enemies. Quantum Physics on the other hand was non-deterministic and implied that Germany only lost the war out of sheer bad luck. Foreman therefore concludes that the development of Quantum Physics was only a response to the political situation at the time. Under the symmetry principle this may seem like a good explanation as to why scientists believe in quantum mechanics, but it does not make any practical sense. The political factors do explain why scientists in Germany would adapt the study but it does not explain why other scientists from different countries such as the United States adapt the study as well. Foreman's thesis leaves no reasons for American scientists to adapt the study but rather it gives reasons why they should not accept Quantum Physics. The acceptance of Quantum Physics by American scientists demonstrates that social and political factors do not (or at least not necessarily) explain why scientists believe a certain scientific idea. Therefore, an explanation for scientific belief should not have the same form as other beliefs, but rather should stretch beyond social and political factors.

Though the strong program provides an arguably impractical principle, it leaves its lasting impact on both the sociology and the philosophy of science. The symmetry principle has made aware the importance of the role and beliefs of the individual scientist. This point continues to be a major point of debate in philosophy and the sociology of science.

Continue

On Knowledge: A look at a priori/posteriori knowledge and universals

Knowledge of the world allows us understand relations between varies objects. It is essential for our day to day lives as well as for our broad global issues. Since knowledge is crucial for in our lives, it is important that we have an understanding of what this is. The term knowledge can be defined as a mental state that represents the world through sufficient evidence. The source of this evidence divides knowledge into two categories, a priori knowledge, and a posteriori knowledge. For knowledge that is a posteriori, evidence is derive from one's senses. Furthermore, knowledge of a subject is only obtain after coming in contact with it. For example, the sound of piano can only be known only after it has been experienced. To have knowledge a priori on the other hand, is to have knowledge before one comes in contact with a subject. An example of a priori knowledge would be 2+2=4.

This provides information about the world but is not obtained through the senses.

To categorize knowledge into two different categories, is not imply that the two are incompatible with each other. Having sensory experience does not preclude one from having a priori knowledge. These are simply two ways of labeling knowledge. It is possible that I can have a concept of a subject in my mind and and then have that concept further develop after experiencing the subject. Consider a person at a park looking for a bench to sit. He has knowledge a priori of a what a bench should look like, and then after he encounters a bench in the park he gains a posteriori knowledge of that specific bench in the park. Both categories of knowledge are used to enhance the information obtain from a subject.

Several people have deemed a priori knowledge impossible, and that the only source of knowledge is that of experience. English philosopher, Betrand Russell, countered these critics by providing his proposal of a solution. Contrary to traditional thought, Russell claimed that a priori knowledge is not just knowledge of one's thought but knowledge of the world. To support his claim he refers to the law of contradiction which states that something can't be both X and not X, where X represents any given subject. To understand that if a tree is a beech then, it can not also be not a beech, is to have knowledge of a truth about the tree. A tree that exist independent of the mind. Therefore, Russell concludes that a priori knowledge is possible through our capability to understand truths of a subject without the need to interact with it.

Knowledge has appeared up to this point to deal only with things in the world that in existence in time. As we proceed, it will be observed that we also are able to have understanding of things that do not exist in time. Consider the color blue. If I was ask what is blue? We may find ourselves recalling different objects that we would call blue in order to find something in common in all of them. This similarity would be found to be their blueness. It would be observed that blueness is shared amongst all the objects that we would recall to be blue, demonstrating also the repeatability of the similarity. Similarities with these characteristics of share-ability, and repeatability are defined as universals. Universals like blueness are the pure essences of particular things which particulars partake from. Particulars, which are not shareable or repeatable, are related to other particulars only through the universals they partake from. Meaning particulars such as a blue cup, a blue marker, and a blue bag are finite things which are related to one another through the universal blueness. Russell points out that universals can be qualities such as blueness which describe one feature in this case blue, or they can be relations. For example, the universal tallness can be used to describe the relation between an ant and an elephant as the elephant being taller than the ant. To simplify this in terms of language, it can be said that universal relations are any words that are prepositions, or verbs, while universal qualities are any words that are adjectives. Truth of a subject henceforth involves universals, and to have knowledge of truth, we must have knowledge of universals.

Russell's view on universals which can be defined as transcendent realism and which he derives from Plato's theory of the forms, is one in which the particulars partake from universals that exist or rather subsist outside of time and outside of of the world of things in a universal heaven. This idea is often compared to immanent realism in which universals exist only through the particulars that instantiate their property and unlike transcendent realism does not reside in a universal heaven. Russell denies nominalism which accepts universals only as terms to be spoken and not something of actual existences. For Russell, universals are very much real and are independent of one's mind. Russell argues that one can have a thought about a universal but the thought itself is not a universal as that same thought can not be exactly repeated again, and does not have the capacity to be shared. If one were to in which case declare that universals are a mental phenomena then the result would be multiple universals for the same subject. Russell also argues that universal relations could not be depended on our minds and requires there to be only one not several universals. Russell illustrates this point by considering the relation Edinburgh is north of London. The relation 'north of' would still exist regardless if one were to think about it or not. Therefore, in order for universals to function in the world, they have to be independent of our minds.

For Russell and other philosophers such as David Armstrong, the independence of universals of from our minds is key for our knowledge of the world. This point allows us to have knowledge about an object without having to resort relativism or skepticism. This view in which case is challenged by, Scottish philosopher, David Hume's account of causation. Before we consider this opposition let us define briefly what is causation and Hume's account of it. Causation can be defined as a relation between two events in correspondence with their cause and effect. For Hume causation is not a universal quality that something can partake from. Rather Hume asserts that what makes something a cause is it relation to its effects. He claims that causes must have three components, they have to have priority, be contiguous, and have a necessary connection. A cause has priority by coming before the effect. This is illustrated when I kick a ball. My foot comes first before the ball moves. Contiguity is possible if the cause and effect are near each other in space and time. When I kick the ball, I physically touch it establishing my nearness to it. Hume brings up this component of necessary connection which is controversial to Russell's transcendent realism. Necessary connection is the components that states that the cause and the effect have to go together, and that they are inseparable. If I kick the ball, it necessarily has to move. Hume argues that our knowledge of causation is obtain only through experience. Therefore we observe certain causes and effects grouped together and we generate ideas in our minds that a specific effect has to follow a specific cause. Hume concludes that such necessary connection is a manifestation in the mind. This as I have point out puts trouble on Russell's transcendent realism. Since necessity according to Hume is a mental phenomenon then that would lead one to conclude that universals themselves are mental phenomenons. Russell in the other hand had stressed the importance of universals and the need for them to subsist independent from our minds.

This controversy between these two views puts a strain on our knowledge of the world. Are we left then to decide between causation and universals? Or are we to somehow compromise both views. If the necessary connection is somehow not in our minds as Hume would otherwise claim, but in the world such that an effect B must follow after cause A, then we find the world to be more orderly and govern steadily by set laws. This in which case would contradict Russell's view of universals. For Russell claims that particulars partake from the perfection of universals and are therefore imperfect copies of the universals. How could imperfect particulars form such an orderly world? Are knowledge and understanding is thus is left in conflict.

Continue

David Hume and Causation

As philosophers have inquired over the nature of the world they have investigated in the conception of causation which is the relation that holds events together by cause and effect. Philosophers have been greatly interested in causation as they believe that it can provide insight into the structure and nature of the world, and it is the desire for this insight that has driven philosophers to move their investigation towards causation and personal identity.

Scottish philosopher, David Hume, accounts for causation as simply a constant conjunction of events. Certain causes and effects are constantly conjoined if it appears that a certain cause is usually followed by a certain effect. For example, if I were to drop a tennis ball from a balcony it would have the usual effect of falling to the ground. In this sense, Hume would say that the cause and effect are constantly conjoined. This brings about some serious consequence because if causation is just a constant conjunction of events then any event that is regularly followed by another event can be rightfully called its cause. To illustrate this problem consider a man turning off the lights in his living room at one o'clock. One can say that his flicking the power switch caused the lights to turn off, but consider if a bird three blocks down the street were to give a loud chirp everyday at one o'clock. Since events are regularly followed by the lights turning off, it can be said that both events have the right to be called the cause. This of course is not intuitively plausible.

This problem has lead philosophers to consider how to distinguish between a true causal sequence from just a regular sequence. In response to the problem some philosophers have resided to claiming that what separates causal sequences from regular sequences is the instantiation of causal laws. Causal laws have the form: if A occurs B has to occur, and express the direction of change of the events from one event to the next, and connect the changes in character of events. For example, if a man flicks a switch, electricity will be allowed to move through a circuit. If it is allowed to move in the circuit it can reach the light bulb. If it reaches the light bulb it can emit light. Note that every moment in the occurrence is driven by a law. Henceforth, the instantiation of a causal law by a sequence of events will determine if a sequence is truly causal or not.

As we have determined that the role of causal laws in causation is an essential one, it is obvious to see why philosophers and scientists have been interested in them. By looking at recurring modes of behavior of different kinds of things, philosophers and scientists can discover these causal laws. For example, if I were to observe a tennis ball falling to the ground every time I release it from my grip, then I could determine that there must be a causal law, which in this case pertains to gravity, that makes this event occur. Causal laws in essence, enable philosophers and scientists to determine the nature of an upcoming event.

We can reflect that this notion of causal laws is in opposition to Hume's account of causation. Hume claims that causation is merely a constant conjunction of regular events. There is no necessity for an effect to follow a cause, such necessity according to Hume is only created in the mind and is projected onto events. A causal law on the other hand declares that causation occurs independent of the mind and has a necessary determined occurrence. Therefore, it would be fair to state that a step towards causal laws is a step away from Hume.

Philosophers have looked at the relation between objects in hopes of trying to understand the world around them. If an examination of causation is an examination of a relation between things, A and B, then in order to obtain any enlightenment from a causal sequence, it is crucial to understand what exactly the things are in the relation. Persons are a major assets in causation as they often interact with other objects and other persons. Therefore it would seem reasonable to examine what exactly is a person.

Continue

A Further Examination on Truth

                  We live as human beings not completely aware of all things. We are ignorant in many fields and know little about things that are apparent to us. But we are somehow aware that of all things there must be a truth. It seems impossible for one not believe there exists truth, whatever it may be. For no one would commit to the belief that all things are just false without any existence of truth because the existence of something being false implies the existence of truth. This is such that if we are to declare proposition P false (in which P stands for all things in the universe) then we can say it is true that all things P are false. Therefore, the existence of falsity implies truth. Furthermore, it has been the ambition of several persons to pursue the truth of certain things. I will include myself in this group. Truth to me is mysterious and intriguing. As I have explained above it is obvious that truth exists but it is complicated to describe how it is that it exists or what it means for something to be true.

                      To begin with the latter, truth is contrary to what ever is false, since the two never occur simultaneously and any proposition that states this is itself false. For if a truth of water bottle is that it is green, it can not be the case that it can be blue at the same time that it is green. The natural way to follow from here is to ask what it means for something to be false. One could answer this by stating that being false is being not true but then we obtain a circular definition which would pose a problem. Let us look at each statement then carefully to access it plausibility. If we are to say that for something to be true is for it to be not false then we are asserting that the truthfulness of something depends on the existence of something that is not true. This turns into a problem because any number of things can be said to be false about a given thing and how can we know what kind of statements are false about an object if we do not know what its truth is. One can not say that the statement, “The water bottle is blue,” is false because we do not know if it is actually the case that it is blue. Let us then turn to our next option in saying that as we did before that for something to be false means for it not to be true. Falsity then would be depended on the truth of a given thing. We can then say that the statement, “The water bottle is blue,” is false because we know the truth of it. Then that brings us back to the question of how something can be true.

                          The complexity of the truth is now beginning to unravel. In my previous discourse in which gave a personal account of truth, I proposed a method ( the Cartesian method of doubt ) in which we could use to analyze the nature of truth. I also provided key insight that may aid us now. To begin I use the Cartesian method of doubt ( in which I doubted all things and then rationally deduced their existence) in order to prove my existence. I stated that there exist thoughts, and I am the one who is thinking them so I too must exist. This method of using reason in order to get to the truth of something (as I had said before truth is in fact the truth of something) seems to me as a great way of understanding how things can be true. That is we are able to come to understand truth by closing examining the nature of a particular thing (in a rational way) until we uncover a truth of things.

               Plato illustrates this point in his allegory of the cave. He writes about a discussion between his main character Socrates, and Glaucon (Plato's brother) in which Socrates asks Glaucon to imagine a group of prisoners in a cave. The prisoners are chained so they are unable to move, and are only able to see the wall in front of them. Shadows of statues are projected onto the wall by a fire behind them. Socrates continues by asking Glaucon to imagine that one of the prisoners is set free and dragged out of the cave and into the light. After seeing things as they really are the prisoner is filled with pity for the other prisoners and returns back to the cave to tell the others. The other prisoners hear him speak and shun him from the group for his difference in thought. Plato used the allegory to explicate that one must get an education. For Plato it seems natural to be born with ignorance (which is symbolized in the allegory using the cave), but he thinks it is also natural for people to seek truth and therefore it is natural to become educated. As kids we are inclined to ask several questions out of our ignorance, this seems to stop as we get older when believe that we have understanding. This is parallel with the prisoners in the cave who only see shadows of statues and artifacts and , “believe(d) that the truth is nothing other than the shadows of the artifacts” (515c, line 1-2). It is only when the guards dragged a prisoner outside and showed (educated) him the things as they are that he was able to get an understanding of truth. But this did not come without a period of doubt and examination. Thus it is clear that to come to an understanding of truth one must closely examine the thing in question. Then to understand truth something as a human being is to know something. And as Plato has mentioned in other works, knowledge is a justified true belief. Belief we take to be a mental state that proposes a truth for something. Therefore it is clear that to understand truth we must reasonably justify it. Hence, as I have proposed, the truth of something requires close examination.

                Let us turn our attention to another question. It has been clear that falsity is contrary to whatever is true, and whatever is true can only be understood through close examination which requires considering all the factors that affect the truth of the thing and deducing a reasonable explanation. But why is it that we must examine the truth of things? What is so great about examination that made Socrates proclaim that “the unexamined life is not worth living” (38a, line 3-4) ? Aristotle would respond to this question by saying that it is the human highest good is to live rationally as that is what separates us from other animals and plants. Therefore asking questions about truth is just part of our nature and it is something that we must do in order to live to our full capacity. This response provides some insights to the question but is also very vague. We can take from this response that humans are rational beings therefore seeking truth is part of our nature like breathing in air. Breathing in air we understand, helps us stay alive by providing our blood cells with oxygen, but what good does pursuing have for us.

           I have claimed in my personal account of truth that things exists independent of myself. It is not the case that my bottle is green only because I perceive it to be green. If it was that way then the properties that appear to be in the bottle would not be there at all but would actually just be mere projections by one's perception. It would be the case that bottle could not exist all together. It is of these things that are independent of myself that I have said that we examine closely and search for truth. It is clear that among all things there are relations between me and the thing. This water bottle for example, is half a foot to the right of my right arm. When I uncover a truth about a thing that then I am also uncovering a truth about the relation between me and the thing. If I find that the water bottle is one foot tall I discover that the bottle is in fact smaller than me. It then must follow that when I uncover the truth of a thing I am able to learn more about myself. Therefore a study of truth is not just a study of things (such as the whole world), but a study about myself. It seems then that we seek truth in order to understand ourselves, this is what Aristotle might have meant by that the highest good of man is living rationally and why Socrates would say that a life not examined is not worth living. For if one does not examine and pursue truth he fails to know even himself.

                It is important to understand that seeking truth does not occur in a vacuum and there are several societal perspectives that influence one's perception of truth. These societal perspectives, norms, and policies, compose what I will call the social paradigm which is the entire world view that a social group has. When one is born the rules of a paradigm are indoctrinated in us via the media, parents, friends, any sort of tool that you can use to obtain information. Therefore when one begins to examine things he does not begin with a clean slate, one begins with several presumptions about a particular thing. For example say there is a law that purposely facilitates the higher class to abuse the lower class and say I am born into a wealthy family that indoctrinates me into the paradigm of the higher class. It is apparent that I will view the law as just. Now any attempt to begin an examination on economics and the nature of justice will begin with this presumption. Let us return again to the example of the cave. The prisoners collectively hold a social paradigm in which they see the shadows cast on the wall as truth. Thus when the prisoner is set free and taken to the opening of the cave he at first thought, “the things he saw earlier were truer than the ones he was being now being shown,” (515d, line 7-8). For the paradigmatic view of the world that a group has is one that the individual will have prior to examination. It seems also that the one can in turn influence and even change the social paradigm. We know that the allegory of the cave as well as the other works of Plato have greatly influenced the beliefs of truth at the time and the beliefs of people of later centuries. Education thus seems to the liberator of ignorance. For when one has education one has knowledge of truth, and once one has knowledge of truth like the prisoner who was taken to the opening of the cave, one will be eager to continue to pursue truth. Education alone does not in which case ensure that the social group will accept the new view, even if it is the truth. For we have seen that as the man return to the cave he is shunned for his difference. But still once one has seen truth one must continue to strive to understand it because not only are we living to our full capacity as rational beings but we are also coming to know ourselves better. It is therefore examination of things that we should practice constantly and educate others into the habit. So much then for truth.

                                                                   Works Cited

Plato, Benjamin Jowett, Pedro De Blas, and George Stade. Essential Dialogues of Plato. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2005. Print.

Plato, G. M. A. Grube, and C. D. C. Reeve. Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1992. Print

Continue

An Introductory Discourse on Truth

         

The wind blew slow and gentle through the leaves on the trees. It moved swiftly on the ground, brushing across the grass like a sly snake looking for prey. The sun laid low on the dome. Its colors scattered on the sky as it made its descent. The scenes seemed to move at an easy pace, frame by frame. And all the sounds of the world seem to come together in harmony and play its magnificent symphony. O! What beauty there is seeing. What beauty there is being. It is in this beauty that I uncovered my dreaded confusion. It is in this beauty that I realized the myriad of voids in my mind. And it is because this beauty that I decided to seek truth.

             I assume that I have some conception of truth because if I did not I would be a deranged-external world skeptic unable to live adequately. This is not to imply that the truth holder can not be a skeptic. For one who has truth may not realize he has it and therefore may become subjected to doubt. My assumption only implied that I am not a deranged external world skeptic because I have a conception of truth in such that the conception of which I hold is one that I believe to be truth. Knowledge is in close relation to truth, as it is a belief about something that I hold is truth. To use Plato's words, knowledge is a justified true belief. Because I believe the belief to be true that means that in my mind I have justified this belief. This then is where I will begin to unravel my interpretation of truth at basis of my knowledge of the world.

               I'm sitting here typing at my desk, seeing words appear on my computer. (I will use this immediate fact to assess my knowledge of truth.) I notice that as I press my fingers on buttons letters appear on the computer. As these letters appear on the computer screen I am able to see them with my eyes. But how can I know for certain that these letters exist? Could they be part of a hallucination of my mind? There are several people who claim to see and experience things but are told to be mad. Could this experience of seeing the letters and words appear on the computer screen be only a result of my madness? And what of these fingers? Could this be a foreign body? Could these fingers also be a result of my madness? Even worse, what if in my madness I have hallucinated my own existence? What if this belief of myself is false?

                   But a belief is a state of mind. A belief must be thought of, and be believed in. And how could such beliefs exist on their own? No, it must be then that if a thought is to exist there must be a thinking being. I know that I am the one who is thinking this thought so I too must exist. It must follow then that I think, therefore I am. The belief of my own thoughts and my own existence is not only knowledge then, but truth. It is the truth of my existence which is the foundation of my conception of truth. Any conception that exists, exists in the mind, and if it exists in the mind then it is something that must be thought of and known. So let us recall how I know the truth of my existence. The knowledge of this truth was not derive from experienced, for one does not experience thinking, but rather I deduced in a rational way using Descartes's method of doubt. That is to say I started from scratch doubting all things including my own existence, and then I proceeded to rebuild by beliefs rationally. This truth is for me the most foundational and most important truth.

          Let us pause on this point which will again appear important later in the discussion and shift our attention to the nature of truth. To speak of truth is a difficult thing, therefore as I have illustrated before it is easier to give an account of truth by assessing the truth of something. For presumably truth can not exists on its own. For truth to exist it must be the truth of something. Let us consider this green water bottle on my desk. It appears to me to have certain properties such as its greenness and cylindricality. The truth of this water bottle may in fact be that it is both green and cylindrical. Notice that as I speak of this bottle's truth I am speaking about as what philosophers call the thing-to-itself. This is to say that if there is a truth of things, this water bottle has a truth, and that truth is independent of all other things, most importantly it is independent from myself. This account of truth is apparently in opposition to a common view of truth which is that of relativism.(This should not be confused with subjectivism which is an account of perceptual information of things while relativism deals with the truth of things.) A relativist would claim that truth in its nature is relative to the person. If then a person were to walk in and claim that this water bottle is blue, he in fact would be stating a truth about the water bottle in the same manner as if I did when I claimed the water bottle to be green. It would follow then in terms of logic that the properties that the bottle are said to have cannot exist in the bottle. This is because the water bottle cannot be all blue and all green at the same time. This is due to the law of non-contradiction which states that a thing P cannot be both P and not P. It must be then that this relativist account of truth is one in which all things have no definite truth to themselves but are depended on a person's relative view.

                 This is a view that I reject but one that I see is rationally plausible. If we return back to the foundational truth of Descartes that I have borrowed for my own account we can see how a relativist view can be developed. Using Descartes's method of doubt we have deduced that I in fact do exist because I think. This as I have stressed is the most foundational and to me the most secure of truths. Therefore in a sense what to me seems most real and true is the thoughts that occur in my head. A thought then about my water bottle is one that I feel makes the bottle exist. I may not know whether the water bottle to itself actually exists but I am certain that the thought of it exists. Therefore in this manner I can generate thoughts about all things around me and assume their existences. The properties then that I perceive them to have are then actually the properties that they actually have. This as I have stated earlier is a position that I reject. For if things are subject to have multiple truth conditions then I too should be subjected to have multiple truth conditions. For the relativist view holds on the point that the truth conditions of a thing are relative to a person. But what makes that person so special to not be depended on other things for truth? It is therefore my position that if I have a set truth that is to say that I exist as a thing to itself, all other things have a truth which is one single truth to themselves.

             I have claim then to recap, that things have their own truth and that truth is in fact the truth of something. It therefore must follow that to assess truth any further one must consider what truth one is looking for. For example as I assessed the truth of the water bottle, I in fact searched for the truth of a particular thing. It is of the kinds of truth of things that separate different fields of study. For this reason truth to a Buddhist monk will be different from Biology professor, as the Buddhist monk searches for the truth of certain things in a certain form. This may be for example the search for the truth of how to live properly while the biologist may be concerned with how the body truly functions. This is not to imply that different truth searches are completely different but only to imply that they have different goals. Furthermore, the question of what is Truth is a rather absurd one. No one has ever ask what is Truth, or at least no directly. Philosophers who question truth are in fact questioning a particular or general thing. The question of what is Truth can in which case be converted into other more meaningful questions such as what is God or what is the nature of reality.

           To reflect on this discussion on truth on a personal level I can say that what I find to be true is always in question. At my age I am not ready or able to determine what is the true nature of things such as reality or God. I do know that in my mind and in my soul I crave to understand and know how and why things are. I find joy in examining life and furthermore I feel that no other life is better fit for me. There are several things still that confuse me and keep me up at night. I find it then an absolute necessity to pursue truth. (Though this pursuit too, I often question.)

Continue